terminate wasteful speppedsing, cap spending at 2008 levels and put the country on the fast track back to a balanced budget. fifth, aggressively support an agenda tosix, permanently ban e. 7, reform the tax code. return the country to constitutional government. commit itself to a strong military rejecting any cuts from the sequestration. 10, embrace a strong culturally and socially conservative agenda and all its forms. the gop has an excellent party platform. if you want our support, support your own platform first. >> and think you. take of think you, brent. to guard jeff bell, representing american principles project. to go think you, richard.

to follow up on one of france first point, it is important for conservatives to start by confronting the fact that the 2012 election was a historic victory for the american left. probably the greatest since 1936. unlike 92, 96 or 2008, at the democratic national ticket did little to anything to obscure the nature and content of its agenda. it would be oath -- surprising if the obama did not view this as europeanizing the government. using judges and regulators to impose its will on subjects ranging from same-sex marriage in all 50 states to green curbing of the upsurge of fossil fuels through such methods as hydraulic fracturing. for darker the galling is the defeat of every republican

challenger for the u.s. senate coupled with a democratic victory in 25 out of a possible 33 races. hanging on to the house by a slightly reduced margin will be a slightly reduced margin for those of us to vote for repeal of obama care and entitlement reform. republicans have now lost four out of the past six presidential elections, and five of the past six in terms of the popular vote. this followed three landslide victories in the era of ronald reagan that dominated the politics of the nation in the world. if this is not the time to recreate an integrated across the board conservative politics to counter the relentless and successful assault by reinvigorated american left, it is hard to imagine when such a time would come. >> thank you.

president susan b. anthony list. to go this certainly had some bright spots last night. in the of fisher and the retaining of michelle bachman, who was heavily targeted by the left, and the return of steve king. those were three bright spots. overall, not a bright spot for the election, despite their growing power among women, almost every demographic. in there was the gap between public opinion and electoral office. election was an invitation to the republican party to return to fundamentals. what are the fundamentals of a winning republican strategy. social policy, economic policy,

and foreign policy, fully embracing each one of those. what we have instead was one wobbly leg with about $1 billion behind it on the republican side from the top of the ticket and affecting every other senate race in the country because of the influence. when fully engaged, each of those policy areas, our real mandate created and a resident on the grass roots level that brings public policy leaders into office of those three areas can be implemented without fully in beijing on each of those area and social policy. we the boats on the table every single time. what we had unfortunately was a de facto truce on social issues. of the factor troops on social issues on one side, but a full embrace of the war on social issues on the other side.

republicans have the true. obama launched the war over abortion and on the life issue. therefore he got to completely define what that issue was and what is rape. abortion and grape in the minds of many voters, because the debate was not fully engage. the president's weaknesses, his extreme position on late-term abortion, selection abortion, children after a failed abortion. none of these were exploited -- explored in any debate, even the allies he went forward with during debate were unaddressed. the live the plan pair of worn -- planned parenthood does not perform abortions.

voters overwhelmingly disagreed with those extreme positions by the president and democratic party. moving forward, the republican party and candidates must sixth blows and exploit the vulnerability is or risk alienating the tremendous and growing pro-life based that year after year, election after election has delivered a winning increment. the war on women, was that seem affected? but it will move women voters? when you look at the data over time, you have to say no. the gender gap that benefited obama last election decrease this election. after the launch of war on women was at the top of the mind every single debate. that clearly did not stick. they were completely estimated

-- underestimated. has the pro-life issue in any way been repudiated? absolutely not. you cannot win the award that is not engaged. you cannot be repudiated if no one has ever heard it. that is exactly what happened on the national level that is why so many boats were left on the table that should not have been that cannot happen again. we're goingwhat are the fundamentals of a to really look at how we endorse and train candidates. from now on they will not be sent into the field without knowing how to discuss the issue with compassion and love and to exploit the other candidates extremes. of debts. one other point. social issues, are they the big

burden on republican backs? if you look at every state that had a statewide race that also have ballot initiatives, every single and every single state but one, the ballot initiatives ran better than the losing republican candidates. that is just data. thank you very much and i look forward to questions. >> thank you. for those who believe that america is founded is the greatest country in the history of the world, we wanted someone who would fight for us. we wanted a fighter like ronald reagan who boldly championed america opposing founding principles who inspired millions of independence and reagan

democrats to join us and who fought his leftist opponents on the -- idea that america was a shining city upon a hill. what we got was a week moderate candidate handpicked by the beltway elite and country club establishment wing of the republican party. the presidential loss is unequivocally on them. with a catastrophic loss, the tea party is the last best hope america has to restore her founding principles. while it may take longer to restore with president, back in office we're not going away. it took nearly 100 years to take america to the place where we are today.

it will take more than 3 1/2 years to restore our constitution. we're going to keep fighting. we respect the constitution and we now that for america to succeed, we need to continue educating americans on our core principles. on the importance of the constitution. and why our solution is essential for america's greatness. when we fight for our principles, we win. our work begins today. county by county, district by district, we will fight for freedom the way others in america have fought for freedom in the past. we turn our attention to local and state governments and congress to fight the battles that lie ahead including balancing the budget, repealing obamacare, cutting the debt, holding the line on the debt ceiling, some things are worked

-- worth fighting for. our constitution is worth fighting for. america is worth fighting for. we will continue to fight. >> thank you. grover norquist had a conflict at the last minute and will not able to join us. next we will hear from the president of the park project. , cuba. the project is a media project that works with 100 conservative organizations across the country to help us get a consistent message. what i want to tell the conservative movement is that like we have done before over the past 50 years, is to to principles. the conservative principles are those that have been mentioned several times so far this afternoon.

freedom of course and a free economy and strong national security, traditional values, the rule of law, and adherence to the constitution. those are the things that the conservative movement was built on starting in nearly 50's. it is the things that keep coming back and i should tell the conservative movement that elections come and go. there was loss for all sorts of reasons. the election will be analyzed, it is being analyzed already. constantly as to why people voted the way they did and they're all sorts of reasons. it is the principles that conservatives believe in that will keep it going. the conservative movement is not going away. a couple of things need to be done is the conservative needs to and will adopt a unified plan of projects that need to be stuck to, it is called no

excuses and it will be released within the next week. that will be things some of which branch mentioned in his statement. things like their tax increases, no earmarks, defunding obamacare, keeping the defense strong. what the purpose of that is to hold the leadership's feet to the fire. there is little satisfaction with the republican leadership in the house and what no excuses will be designed to do is to give conservatives in the house a list of things which they can go to the leadership and say no more excuses, we will not hear anything that you have to say as they have done but get these things done.

the other thing is the conservative movement needs to look ahead. we will look at this election and figure out why things happened the way they did but it is time to put mitt romney in the rearview mirror and proceed. there is a long bench on the republican side, many others of home -- who will be there to be the candidate. we need a clear view of where we're going. in 2014 there is as bright a view of the senate takeover by republicans as any time in the last 30 or 40 years. the number of republican scifres up for election as opposed to the democrats after

two more years of a, -- obama, if republicans can take back the senate, they will make the last two years of the obama administration immeasurable time for the president. those are few of the things we look forward -- those are a few of the things. we look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you. >> this is one of the examples -- can you give examples of how mitt romney could have complained and the regret -- [inaudible] i do not think there's any question he took all the right stance.

that is not the argument he took all the right positions and we were all happy to spread those commitments around. the problem was not communicating on a national stage with obama what his positions were. and when he was attacked, he led the attacks stick. an attack 6 unless you repudiated in some way. i would say that if not nationalizing the issue was the problem. we were happy to endorse him when the time came. we assume that he would make it more of a national issue. >> i agree. it is important for the -- the nominee to have conservative

positions on social issues but if he does not defend those positions in a presidential debate, it is a problem because then the voters hear one side of it. example is when governor romney was going down a list of flaws in obamacare he did not mention the hhs mandate. if it had been better known, it would have hurt obama. it is one thing to know voters do not like the mandate. i agree. it was not a matter of the positions he took. it was his failure to elevate them when it seemed appropriate in terms of the natural flow of debates in campaigning.

>> [inaudible] a lot of hispanic families share the values that killed reelection. should they push an immigration bill with some kind of amnesty provision [inaudible] >> i believe the republicans in congress should get involved in comprehensive immigration reform. not amnesty in the sense that all is forgiven and go directly to citizenship but doing

something for the 11 million people who are here illegally, it is a threshold issue. if they think the republican party is now welcoming toward them, it is hard to get their attention on anything else. i would also argue that social issues, they are among the most pro-family, pro-work voting strength in the population and the failure to use those issues and try to win over hispanic motorhome was a major ally in the republican effort in 2012. >> you answer it when you said hispanic family values. the answer is hispanic family values. i was -- we were all struck after the 2008 election when the republican leadership told us that there were two things that had to happen.

there needed to be outreach to hispanics and blacks and republicans had to get away from the social issues. if you look at the only thing, it was the marriage amendment in california. if you look at why it won, it was a crossover of hispanics and black pastors and joined the republicans. rather than look at hispanics and blacks from the standpoint of what we white people want to look at, why not ask them what they're -- they're interested in? wynola get their values and their cultural agenda and their priorities and address that? that is where there is great common ground and i do not understand why republicans seemingly are afraid of their own shadow and. when it comes to that. >> in the first national election, president obama embraced gay marriage.

[inaudible] is this a losing issue going forward for conservatives? >> this is an issue that is free much under debate. you're right. there were four blue stage yesterday that approved gay marriage. most of them by very narrow margins. there were far less margins in the state legislatures in some of those states. would-be disaster is is if the obama administration had used the judiciary to oppose a solution on all 50 states that involved making doma unconstitutional and cutting off a debate when the other side made gains there is a lot of victories in something that is so far unique to the northeast and the pacific coast

as a popular base movement should then be imposed on the midwest, the south and every other part of the country, 30 -- 32 states voted to prohibit it. >> i take my hat off to the democrats for sally embracing the principles. became ready for flight and they did not back down one bit when i came to their perspective. or abortion. we're worthy republicans? -- where were the republicans? have republican showed up, maybe there would have been a difference. rex i want to say this, it is similar to why the republicans fight against health care bill failed.

that was a failure to put resources, focus, and energy into working on each constituency that could have voted down the bill. the pro-life democrats being a great example. about $1 million out of the $80 million that was spent had been focused on that, maybe it would have voted differently and we would not be talking about obamacare today. >> i have two questions. the first is is there an acknowledgement that the demographics in this country, that is changing, there is a changing face of america, what do you do about that? what happens now that you have the fiscal cliff?

you have this deadline, how does that change? does your approach change post- election now? >> there is definitely a demographic change. we all recognize that. there is a school of people that work in demographics who said that if romney had won this election it would be the last national election that a republican would win under the same rules and principles. if you look at the numbers and there was a zogby poll that came out this afternoon that shows where -- how those numbers have changed over the last two or four years and they are significant. republicans have to address that when -- one way or another. i had dinner with arthur davis who outlined what he thought and his points were significant in terms of what blacks and hispanics believe or what the one. it will be of long time before the wind. >> regarding the fiscal cliff, and the economic issues. what we saw last night were

that the voters voted for the status quo which is gridlock. they did not see a clear distinction between either of the party so they went with what they now and what they know is what we have seen in the last two years, is a standstill. they continue to evaluate which direction they want to go and that is what we will see in the next few weeks and in the next few years we will see what we have seen in the last two years. >> i'm curious whether you share richard mourdock's view that [inaudible] >> that is something i feel very strongly.

i to read this it seems like every day. if i have a home and want to sell for $200,000 and you want to buy it for $170,000, there is a compromise somewhere. if i want to buy your home for one letter sent thousand dollars and you do not want to sell it, i do not understand where the compromises. conservatives and tea party ears are a sick and tired of republican leaders at the national and state level of compromising with democrats which lead to the continual growth of government. why can we not compromise on how much we're going to reduce the size of government? that is a measure that we will hold the republican leaders feet to the fire on. we want compromise in reducing the size of government. we're sick and tired for the last 50 + years of seeing republican leaders compromised with democrats and pro the size of government. >> it is a simple formula. when a compromise in their direction they lose trade when a compromise in our direction we

win. >> i have a good example. this president began his first term talking about common ground on abortion. he was sick and tired of what we're sick and tired of which is arguing about it all the time. there is no place in the gestation of a baby that is protected. that is the president's position. many points along the continuum. try to find some compromise to where he made clear, there is perfect clarity what his position is and that is there is no part in the continuum, not even after the baby is born. it became clear that compromise was talk for i am trying to bring your around to my point of view. >> the tea party is having [inaudible] again. it is the tea party dead or where is it going?

>> three and a half years ago there were 22 of us. there was a poll three weeks ago, 40 million people would be voting based on the tea party principles and identify with us. from nothing four years ago to 34 months later, 22 people to 40 million people. it is not the death of the tea party. we're promoting our values of fiscal responsibility and

limiting permit -- government and free markets against campaigns that have been campaigning for the past six years. we're new, we're not going away, and we will continue to grow and get better. >> to put a finer point on that, i could not agree more. i feel that because of the tea party and the conservative movement working at the grass- roots level, all the way up to the republican presidential nominee in four years, within that time, the conservative movement tea party will take over the republican party within four years. there is one last question. if not, thank you for coming. >> c-span and knives middle and high school students to send messages to the president. -- invites middle school and

high-school students to send messages to the president. it's open our great 6-well. for complete details and rules, go online. the gun out, a discussion on the 2012 election with the former white house communications director and the lebes contributor hosted by lobbying firm allows both strategies on capitol hill. this is about and aware. >> good morning, and welcome. thank you for being here. i am founder and president of this organization, laszlo strategies. it is an organization that is a

post-strategic communications, but we are not partisan. i am delighted to have it to record -- terrific set up panels to offer the audience today. we have a live audience here inside the capital area. we're in the hearing room of the foreign affairs committee. i would like to think the congressman brad sherman for providing the room for us. he had an upset win last night. i would like to thank him for his service to america and to congratulate all people who ran for office, whether they either won or lost last night. it is an incredible thing to have to serve or be willing to serve. it is a painful process to go through negative campaigning. i think the american voters show a debt of gratitude for all that are willing to serve.

i have picked a very distinguished of of folks to talk from left to right. to make it convenient for you i have ceded them in a way that i think is approximately from a left to right. on my right and you're left, i will start with our first speaker but the way i am going to do it is i will briefly introduce each speaker. i will ask them the same question which is about what happened in the election and spend five minutes. we will go on to the nexti will start with ann lewis. she is a complete superstar in strategic communication. people know her as the former director under president bill clinton and the shining light behind a political operation of hillary clinton.

i think by this hour while they're still counting votes in florida and made for the next week -- there is an even greener light. here is what we know. the president was reelected and democrats picked up seats in the thought even as late as today. the house is going to stay roughly the same. absent breaking news, i bring you know prescind returns from florida. i would like to spend more time on why this has happened and what it means for us going forward.

campaign team. the planned it and executed it, they knew what votes they needed and went out and got them. take ileus appear -- technically a superb operation. perhaps some people will think by the fourth or fifth visit -- it did work.

i want to point out how much of these elections are about policy, not just about campaign techniques. an example is the ongoing principle that government can be a force for good. government is not always the enemy. the rescue of the auto industry, very important. the second policy that had direct electoral consequences was the decision to reach out to what we know. young people who had been by their parents, did not have the appropriate papers forthere were americans in every and there

were hoping to go to call it. the president was the decision to suspend deportation category with the -- was awe see in the numbers, understood and appreciated. the third is around the question provisions around care for more gender discrimination, a series of preventive service like cancer screening, birthto the extent that republicans beginning with their nominee made it an issue there were they said to a lot of women were not on your side.

you had a symbolic way of saying to people we understand and we want to be helpful. the fourth piece i would say is the issue of marriage. in maryland, equal marriage. marriage should be open to important that issue is as the civil rights issue. when i look at use turn out and heavy margin that president obama got, a smaller clusters or chair. it may look to an outsider as if not much has changed. we have president obama and the republican majority in the house but we look at the different people who have been elected to congress.

their life experiences and and reflects the changes in america. we have a for your new women senators. challengers and five new candidates for -- there were reelected. there were 33 senate seats up for election. one in three of the democratic nominees for women. this is a historic marker for a party and the voters liked it, too. four new democratic women. the growing number of women in the senate is gerrie important. reflected by the way the continuing number of women in the electorate in 2008, women

and they gave president obama a 13 point margin. i cannot say this morning with the turnout will be. you are doing pretty well. hang attention to the world of women voters in this one and the role of hispanic voters and the role of the young voters and their enthusiasm for the president and then go back and the the the policies which have a better sense of what thisthank you. >> i will turn to the political right. i will turn it over to blaise hazelwood. she is the president of press returning which is that mike returning.

leading republican political consultants and good friends of mine and she is a working mother. a real testament to the world of women that this is the first panel i have done on politics where we have had so many of the is here for from affirmative action. this is a superstar panel. >> my husband and i were talking about this last night and the first thought that occurred to me is this is campaign 101. i have to give the obama team great credit, they turned out their base and they did a a lot

we need to learn from them. as republicans. the next thing is that-works. -- negative works. the team went in and defined romney early. romney was not given a chance and that works. the last one is you always have to rebut the negatives against you. of campaigning. the campaign with that summer go unanswered. let all those tax go unanswered. that was the problem. as you saw will look at the house, they did the exact opposite.

taxed, they went on the offensive immediately. and we are in the same place as the house. the house campaigns went negative early and the results are parent that that works. and so for the future, i look at this again, it is like a learning experience. this is 2004 all over again. the republicans are the one with the wake up call this time. the sides of change. we need to look back at this election and again review our turnout techniques and go from there. >> thank you. i will turn to eleanor clift. she is a contributor to newsweek magazine and the daily beast website and a regular panelist on the mclaughlin group.

what happened from your perspective? >> my chair is lower than the two ladies. i am ten feet tall today. electorate. electric. ronald reagan ran in a different america. ronald reagan would have a difficult time in today's republican primary process. i think there are lessons here on the republican side and the not as technocratic as blaise is suggesting. those lessons can be learnedit

is the remaking of the republicans cannot be a nationalthe republican party is 90% white. the democratic party i 50%, majority minority and women trade when we look at the state of the union next year, that divide is so apparent with republicans on one side and democrats on the other. the overwhelming white male list of the republican party comes through. to three of them. the republican party alive. there are lessons here and the republican party will have to go through some rethinking and there are lessons here for president obama as well. he had a near-death experience

after the first debate. he did see his politicalif there was a word, a fecklessness to the presidency that he is the celebrity and he can custom off i think that has been purged from him. he won in large part because of the auto bailout. opposition to it was overwhelming. he did it and it succeeded and it was cold and clear. we need more of those kinds of decisions and more of that leadership and i think he needs to be mindful that he has to tell his story along the way. however superb his campaign was, of the white house team was

terrible in message making during most of his presidency. they lost control of the health-care debate, the tea party came in and filled that void and thatit will be a long time before they get the house back because of redistricting and all that. that is the one sour note for election is what to do about the house and is there a way back to the majority? there is going to be some rethinking of their approach andi would like to see thethe bully pulpit for business america. bolstering business. i think it would send the rest -- right message and i thought

governor romney's speech was classy and that is probably whohe does not run alone. he runs with the party and i think he alone could not change his party even if he got elected. and so i would like to see governor romney have some sort of prominent role. there is bad blood between the man but there's a lot of gamesmanship in politics and if you are the winter you can president-elect obama reached very bitter primary fight and get all the good that has come from that. that is my wish for the future. >> thank you. i will turn to rick dunham. he covers politics for hearst

and is president of the board at the national press club of journalism institute. he is the past president of the press club. >> i have attended a lot of jennifer's sessions over the years, covering them. it is a special honor to be on the panel. and i can import enough wisdom here -- i hope i can impart enough wisdom here. in my new life as a webre writer, since all journalists are multimedia all the time, ii will do the top 62 ways from the election last night. for me. tidal wave and the republicans ignore it at their own peril.

the electorate has gone from 9% to 20%. if you had the same electric as we had in 2000, romney would have won yesterday. the same way four years ago if we had had the electric of 1988, john mccain would have defeated barack obama. the facts are there. if people turn out, if minority voters turn out, the republicans have a disadvantage to service. latino vote, it was huge. though you look at the states, you could argue iowa. state after state, the latino vote if you take it out, the democrats would have lost. even in florida with 61-39, that the majority in florida among latinos but also the younger generation of cuban americans are voting like dominican or puerto ricans.

biggest shift. 75-25 for obama. bush actually won the asian- american votes. it was a swing vote leaning republican. yesterday was three to one democratic. urban-rural. it is 60-40 and demographically which areas are growing, the urban areas or rural america? you would not want to bet on rural america to be our population center going ahead. young and old, again, the youngest voters of the most probing, although i will say that the 18-21 voters are less

slightly older than they are. the 21-30. which would you rather have, young voters to are going to be boaters for 60 or 70 years or people you are -- 21 when ronald reagan was elected who are now seniors? they're not the greatest generation and they're not the new deal rumsfeld democrats. the people who are going to be tomorrow's seniors are people like me and we're not your -- not the same kind of democrats as the greatest generation. republicans cannot be the party of older white men. and it is important to years ago. the republicans did quite well among women across the board. yesterday you saw the gender gap among women stayed the same as four years ago although men

opened up and romney did a lot better among men than mccain did. protestants, if you look in virginia, that could have been the difference. the percentage of the voting population that was evangelical significantly over four years. and a lot of states are going to have to look at north carolina as more people who are not the old jesse helms born-again evangelicals protestants. south carolina and georgia, you may seek demographic changes

takeaways. the polls right. there was a lot of debate about where the polls by as and legitimate debate about the methodology, the screens for likely voters and we get it right and as you are aware, a lot of people use of funds. and not land mines. polling is an art and science and they did a very good job by and large. almost every leading polling organization, a gallup was the allies' air but they were within the margin of error. that is a big take away. there is the myth of the undecided voter. all year long we had stories, who were the undecided voters? people who are parking themselves going one direction or another and depending which we it was, your definition of who is undecided change.

the undecided voters were people who because obama was ahead in they were undecided are people economy, with obama's performance but there were not sold on romney. there were saying that was the undecided voter. those people were saying there were for romney and the people who were undecided are people who used before, but they did not like his performance so there were undecided. undecided. we're going to analyze it, we have to analyze it as persuadable voters. the way we analyze undecided voters is ridiculous. independents are no longer the romney won independence and in a lot of key battleground states, he carried the independent vote and lost. independents the way they define themselves now in this era of strong partisanship tends to lean slightly republican.

if they split even or democrats when it, it is a good year for democrats. moderates lean democratic. moderates are also a key swing vote. we have to look at people who call themselves moderates and independents and somewhere in between or the combination is your swing electric. we dismissed moderates for years because people were saying leans democratic. we should dismiss demographics -- independence because they leaned democratic. the suburbs cannot be analyzed as a whole. you look nationally, romney won the suburbs by two points. look at northern virginia. it delivered -- the blue state suburbs, philadelphia whiteout romney.

the suburbs also wiped out romney. new york, philadelphia, d.c., los angeles, san francisco, the suburbs were democratic. the suburbs were swing. suburbs of dallas, houston, san netanya, atlanta, charlotte, and south carolina ever -- were republican. analyzing by saying suburbs does not work. you have to look at each individual suburb or the region of the country. and we have to rethink the way we spend money in politics. if this was a $6 billion election-year with status quo results, the biggest success would -- when it comes to money and politics and i'm not talking about message macro, it may be an effective way to pay voters directly. there is more returns for your investment. i would conclude by saying that the supreme court is the second most important institution in the united states in aiding the economic recovery because next to the feds, they have done more to pump more money, more

stimulus into the economy in hard-hit states like nevada, florida, ohio, colorado, any institution. they may be more important than the fed. we have to look at money and politics. >> this is interesting. the comments from all four speakers. i want to ask about a demographic group that none of you touched on. one out of every five americans has a disability. 51% of likely voters said they have a family member with a disability. at the national press club when there was an opportunity for the romney campaign and the obama campaign to send someone to speak about disability issues, attend and chose not to

issue a position paper on disabilities. i wanted to ask why, given that one out of five americans has a disability, 51% of american likely voters has a family process? >> the short answer is in an election that revolving around the role of government, if your you want to get into a conversation about how do you

assist people with disabilities role for government which might mean a program, which might mean money. it is not a conversation you want to engage before an election. >> think it becomes part of the mix of issues around caregiving which are directly important to women who are usually care givers. falls to women. role as care givers. disability is an issue. how do i meet my responsibilities, whether it is as a mother or daughter. when you talk to voters about their roles as care givers, whether it is the family medical leave act, which was one of the big successes of the clinton administration or the new affordable care act. now insurance companies cannot caps the amount of money that goes to someone because ofif you

listen to president obama talk about the family whose daughter had leukemia, and because of the affordable care act, they will continue to get support for their child while otherwise it was about to run out. disability gets woven in to a set of issues that you could describe as the role of government but a more human way to say it is against -- again, how do we help each other meet those responsibilities? >> i think back to george bush in 2008 and the way he tried to define himself as a different kind of republican. one way was on medication and he talked about the bigotry of low expectations. the republican who would deal with this drug they will try to figure out the role of

government that could be helpful and also to talk about the private sector and the imperative for all americans to get together whether government is involved not. eleanor hit the nail on the head why america -- republicans did not talk about it. >> given the wounded warriors issue and other issues, do you agree that republicans do not know what to say on disability issues? when i think about disability advocates, i think of. sessions and tom ridge, the fact that the ada was passed by a republican administration. is there a reason there was not more done to target that constituency? >> i will go back to the campaign 101.

you have to talk to people. the fact that they did not show up is a problem. that goes to the other demographic we're talking about. former president bush talked to uzbeks and we did not see that in this campaign. again i want to go back to that simple statement but i would like to take another step back. i think about the 49% nation. that is where we were in 2004 and everyone who says this is another 2004 election, it is. i remember walking around with of powerpoint encouraging people to turn out and the first page was a 49% asian. i see that we're in it and after every election, every four years, there is the demise of what ever critical party and they will have to redefine

themselves. again, i see it as 49%. questionsoing to take from the audience. this is how it is going to work. if you want to ask a question i will ask you to come to the microphone. it works better for c-span if people can hear what you're asking. if you're of a question, please make your way to the microphone. we would be happy to hear what is that is on your mind and i will ask that it be a question and not a statement so that we can be answering questions up here and not hearing political

views and that you identify yourself when you,. if people are making their way up, i would like to ask about the future. we talked about what happened in the election but we have not hit on what does it mean? ann touched on this as did others. $6 billion was spent and a lot of time and energy and talent was spent on this campaign. at the end of this, we have the same president >> the fact that he is still the majority leader means that there has not been a change. the has been a significant change. it is about their life experience, what they bring to the table. in the state and new hampshire, we now have a woman governor, two women senators and we now have two women democratic members of congress. new hampshire is a pioneer in politics in many ways.

going to that they're be a pioneer in this kind of representation but i want to go back to a moment to talk about disability. i realize when i talk about -- when i hear maggie talk about what politics meant for her, it started with her having a disabled child. it is often my candidature leaders to bring to the table, this is about my family, and they build on it to say what they can do for everyone else. >> given to the state of the economy, the expectation early on was that mitt romney should and would win and he would bring with him a republican senate and we would have a one-party control government. the fact that the democrats beat that back against a lot of

opinion for a long time that suggested that is what would happen and republican senate was taken for granted until two months ago when some of the republican candidates began to say things that put them outside the mainstream, i guess, would be the kind way to put it. the democrats have some very good can did it so those races were decided kind of individually. i read the numbers of the status crowe, but i think the those in washington is very different, that a rising republican tide was turned back. democrats are more firmly in control. lessons have been learned from the first four years, maybe. no more mr. nice guy. >> can you expand on that in the fiscal clip and some of the policies? >> i want to look ahead to the

future. i do not have a good clear crystal ball here. i think these are all things to be determined. the barack obama reach out to republicans? starting with romney, but really the leadership and some of the key players whom he might be able to work with in a bipartisan way, say john mccain. there are house members and senators. does he reach out? secondly, legislation. does the government from the center out? does the governor from the base over to try to get a majority? on the republican side, how do they respond if obama reaches out? i think he will realize with the the test booklet facing us that he has to do something. how do republicans respond not have as much mcconnell responded?

-- how do republicans respond? how does a mitch mcconnell respond? then what happens in the house? there are two questions and with john boehner. is he willing to go in and legislate, especially if he gets a major concessions from the president? in my gut, the answer is yes. can he bring his caucus along? yes, a few of the leading to party leaders were defeated -- tea party members were defeated, but they are still as conservative as they were before last night. we have some issues that could really divide us, like immigration with the president will be moving ahead quickly. the 10 to one of the old days said they would not accept, it may not be 10 to one come and maybe four to one or five to one, but they will get 80% of

what they want. can they say yes to only 80%? the final one is the supreme court. what happens if ensign and scalia retires? forget -- antonin scalia retires? forget ginsberg. what happens if obama will appoint the first asian-american to the court? i cannot give you the answers. we will see a lot of bloodletting. goingave no idea what's to happen because i do not think president obama told us what he plans to do. i was very curious what he plans to do. he says he is not romney but he did not tell what he's going to do with the budget in the coming years, so i don't know. >> is there a blueprint for what

he tried to do with john boehner and these policies to consolidate them? i just do not buy the notion that we have no idea what he's going to do. i think we have a pretty good idea. >> he did not tell us. >> what would you like him to say? >> what he plans to do with the budget and how we're going to deal with the fiscal cliff. >> we are there now. we will see. i do not think romney told us how he would deal with that either. >> i think you're right on that. we can agree on that. >> the model, for me here is a health care reform. he never said exactly what he wanted. he did not do what clinton did in this proposal on the table, but that is what we're going to see. does he embrace simpson-bowles or some variant? or does he does try to bring everyone in the white house with

bipartisan leadership to come up with something behind closed doors that can pass? whatn't know the answer on the approach to the president will be. either one has risks. the first one has more risks for the president, plans that the republicans can knock down in the second is more dangerous for the republican leadership if they cut a deal and cannot bring their followers a wall. either way, it's fine for me and will be great for reporters. >> first question. >> are you surprised that the issue of his mormon faith played such a small part in the campaign apparently? secondly, is not one conclusion that the republican party might draw that they need someone who is a standard bearer who is more publicly determined and committed to the precise base issues and will be more a strongly committed in such a

way so as to not shift positions during the course of the campaign? >> blaise? korff -- blaise? >> sure. i go back to this being a 49% nation. the issue is, how strongly they were talked about, it is another issue. i do not necessarily think that it may a difference. the base aren't each side is what it is. in terms of not talking about religious group, and give the democrats credit because they did not use that in the

campaign. that is and then they could have done. i also give the romney campaign credit and romney himself for addressing his religion early on. it goes back to campaign 101. rebut what you know on the offense. that is how i would address it. >> are not surprised. i am pleased that it did not emerge as an issue but it also makes good sense. americans do not like to see people attacked because of religion. we are proud of ourselves for being in an inclusive and diverse country. we are a country that a strong enough to include different forms of religion and it would have been a political mistake to take that on, so i'm not

surprised. will republicans conclude they would have done better with a candid it did not wait until he was in the primary to announce he was severely conservative? for example, i first met romney when he was a moderate pro- choice governor of massachusetts. since then, he has made more you turned down a boston cabdriver. -- more u-turns than a cab driver. the can make more correlations in the kind of voting support he got. if republicans decide what they really need to do is go back and do it even more conservative again, far be it from me to try to persuade them otherwise. we have another election in four years. >> on the question of religion, i agree iblaise and ann.

people who say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate because they were anymore menem, the majority of them felt barack obama is a secret muslim who was born in kenya. it is true that the democrats did not make it an issue and that's a good thing. >> some of the positions romney took really hurt him, specifically with regards to immigration reform. gingrich said romney was the most conservative on that issue when that is the fastest growing walkabout were -- a block of a voters, that's not a good position to be in raleigh. romney did best when he was in the center. he became in a candid it in the debate -- candidate in the game.

they're willing to let him do anything he wanted, but think it was grover norquist to rather famously said it did not matter who they had in the white house of long as he was republican and head tended to sign their legislation and. that is one example of a party controlling its candid it to a degree that i do not recall in my lifetime. >> next question. >> i do not often listen to talk radio, but this morning i felt gleeful. i'm stunned at how many commentators are digging their heels in on the right and refused to recognize that america has spoken by whatever margin. there is a shifting demographic in this country and most of us seem to recognize that. i do not think the republicans

have a sense that their base is shrinking and they will be reduced to a regional political base a they do not embrace the fact that asians, latinos, any other group that you can think of is calling this. i think the election of "14 will come before 16, but what will it take to get the republicans to recognize that the demographic has shifted and they are not keeping pace with change? >> back to me, i guess. >> the other republican panel is coming up in about 10 minutes. ralph reed and jim pinkerton will be talking about a lot of republican issues.

>> i would as they don't forget the majority in the car burst. but the american people did speak. there still remained the gop majority in the congress. what they do not want to confuse radio talk-show hosts with the country at large. radio talk-show hosts get and maintain their audience by being extreme. the louder you are, the more people listen. they do not necessarily speak for the country. i do not think they speak for the congressional leadership which is looking at what the best interest of other members are and what they can do in the next two years to go in as a

response will members of congress. yes, the washington boys wilkes -- will whoop it up, but part of that is the free enterprise system at work, not necessarily a electoral politics. >> there truly is a demographic tidal wave and republicans ignore this at their rome peril. and did not think the first and republicans should do is change course. blaise as explained they lost the pregnancy but they still have some power. to meet family needs to be done is a debate. ann remembers it well after the defeats of mondale and dukakis. out of it came bill clinton, the new democrats.

you cannot say romney lost because he was too moderate so we need someone really conservative. we need the discussion and when you talked about, the demographic, and cultural changes, the economic changes, and how to best approach it. that's a process. >> what does this question been for the presidential candidates who are already running around in the republican party? does this mean rubio has cougha better chance? >> republicans are already looking to chris christie. >> which party? >> and some are saying how off message was and they do not like a number of things he has done. someone with appeal across the

parties is what you want. and someone who can defend where he is. >> are there other questions? if so, please cannot to the microphone. did you have a question? -- please come up to the microphone. >> i was a drill in a few would be able to engage in some monday morning quarterbacking. what could the romney campaign could have done to win it? he was too narrow in his approach. he kept coming back to his business experience and it seemed like he was reluctant to go off in other directions. he kept his focus very narrow. if you're a consultant to the

romney campaign, what would you have done? how'd you think his campaign will be viewed? at a dismal failure because it did. as ronald? i've been curious on your reactions -- it has a dismal failure? >> that will be an interest of a lot of people on the right to define it as a dismal failure. i think it was as dismal as john kerry. the difference between romney losing and bush winning is just the democratic shift in the country from 2004-2012. looking that where the republicans go, again and, the best way to approach this is to try to figure out how you deal

with the key groups. with the help of todd akin and mourdock, you look. there are small parts. immigration and his veering onto the right and his unwillingness to have a discussion with latino voters. and then with african-american voters, all the talk about voter suppression or democrats trying to keep to increase the turnover tremendously. >> i would be really interested to hear on some of this. one, in the primary, and one in the general were a thought, "really?" in the debate with rick perry,

he attacked rick perry and moved to the right of him for signing a dream act in texas. that would have been the first one. it may have worked in the primary but it had long-term consequences. the second was saying more than once he was going to get rid of planned parenthood. one in four or one in five women have at one. or another in their lives gone to planned parenthood for some basic health care. going on record saying matt, there were steps that he took consciously in the primary that i felt were mistakes he paid for later. in the general election, as a first priority, adds were being run attacking his record at bain and he was